Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::''Suetonius'', duh. ] (]) 02:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
:::''Suetonius'', duh. ] (]) 02:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Read the Iliad first, then the Odyssey. The events of the Iliad precede those of the Odyssey, so it makes sense to read it first. Also important to remember the differences between the two in terms of style. The Iliad is basically "Game of Thrones" There's dozens of characters to keep track of, you leave one for quite a while, then later come back, and jump between them. Actually, it's like reading one of the middle books of the Game of Thrones series, without reading the others: the war is already going on at the beginning, and it isn't over by the end. The story supposes you are familiar with the principles and what's already happened in the Trojan War, and so has other purposes than simply telling a straight, linear narrative. There are some distinct philosophical themes running through it, but as a narrative, it doesn't have as much drive as the Odyssey. It's a good read, but as far as a narrative arc, the Odyssey is an easier read. You have only one major character (Odysseus, who is also a character in the Iliad) and the story has a clear beginning-middle-end with episodes that move it along in a clear direction. The thing to remember about these stories is that they contain characters the original audience would have been so familiar with, they don't need to have the sort of ] you'd find in a self-contained drama. The characters in these stories would have been like Batman and Superman and Spiderman to the original audience, so the stories spend little to no time developing the characters. Just like when Superman shows up, everyone in the audience knows the basic backstory, so we can just get on with him kicking ass, when Achilles or Paris shows up, we don't get a lot of "Oh, that's the invincible warrior with the weak spot" or "That's the guy who kidnapped Helen" or all that. Everyone knows that stuff already, so we just jump in in the middle of the action. It may be good to brush up on the character backgrounds ''before'' reading the Iliad, just so you know who everyone is. --]''''']''''' 02:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
: Do we really have to put up with this sort of abuse of the ref desk? And from an administrator, no less? Dismas's request for clarity was good, but that's about as far as we ought to go. If Drmies wasn't then prepared to respond with something rational, then the whole thing should have been deleted on the spot. It's doing ourselves a disservice to entertain such rubbish any further, and I suspect all the above responses will prove to have been a waste of time and effort. Thanks, Comrade Administrator. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 02:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
: Do we really have to put up with this sort of abuse of the ref desk? And from an administrator, no less? Dismas's request for clarity was good, but that's about as far as we ought to go. If Drmies wasn't then prepared to respond with something rational, then the whole thing should have been deleted on the spot. It's doing ourselves a disservice to entertain such rubbish any further, and I suspect all the above responses will prove to have been a waste of time and effort. Thanks, Comrade Administrator. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 02:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 02:57, 22 October 2014
Welcome to the humanities section of the Misplaced Pages reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Why is it northern ecliptic down? If you search for one that's not rising sign right that is Which is also backwards (the upper chart is below the horizon).
I know where the Sun and evening sky is because of the date. That's more information and less indirect than forcing me to find one of the circa 8 sign symbols I know or the Sun so I know how much to turn the chart. Then the planet symbols are upside down, Pluto's looks more like Uranus's than Pluto's and Uranus's looks like an asteroid's, the asteroid(s)'s confuse further till I finally memorized the idiosyncratic Uranus/Pluto symbols just to know every object I want by sight. They have too much stuff cluttering everything (asteroid(s) and aspects thereof, aspects with points of the lunar orbit, aspects like 5/12ths circle, 1.5 right angle for more than moon phases, 1/5th circle or worse (who cares!), angles so crooked they don't resemble what they're supposed to be anymore (too much latitude for offness)). Sometimes I want to see if the planets are making any interesting shapes and this annoys me. Astrology charts put lines though, making any aesthetic and very easy to see. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I hope I am understanding your question. Celestial maps are drawn looking upward at the sky from below. If you hold the map above your head the cardinal points will match reality, but if you put the map on a table and look down on it, if N & S are properly oriented, E & W will appear reversed. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That confused me till middle school. What I meant is why is Aries to the left and therefore the southern celestial hemisphere up? See www.chaosastrology.net/astroform/chartwheel.cfm (put none under house), planetwatcher.com, the Astrological Charts app or Aquarius2go app (turn house off) (I thought that the rising sign was on the right where it shouldn't be. Oops. Astrologers did get that right.) Why Aries is Cancer down, Capricorn/Sagittarius up, and Libra/Virgo right on more useful (to non -astrologers) sign-based charts? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If you don't get any good answers here (and given the subject matter I suspect you won't), I can recommend an astrologer who is very good at answering questions like this, if you want to put a message on my Talk page and we'll take it from there. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Is a nurse allowed to date a (former) patient's child?
No law against it. Don't know if it violates professional ethics standards (but it probably depends on the specific situation.) Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Policies about dating between professionals (including medical professionals, educators, lawyers, etc.) and their clients are subject usually to the policies of the employer in question. The nurse would need to refer to their specific employer's policy on the matter. There are no universal rules, and it is under the realm of employee conduct rules (developed by the employer, professional organization, union, or other similar body) and is not a matter of civil law. Literally, the only people who can answer this question are the employers of the nurse. If the nurse in question is concerned, they need to speak to their employer, or look through their employer's conduct policy for the relevant guidelines. --Jayron3220:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, professions such as attorneys have codes of conduct which specify the limits of professional and personal relationship overlap, which have the force of law, and government employees are often subject to anti-nepotism rules. The US medical profession in general has no specific codes of conduct which would prevent a caregiver from dating the child of a patient, and I have personal experience that such situations are rare but not generally a source of concern for former patients at all. 76.88.167.15 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Albert Pearse
I am trying to research a missionary in Raiatea by the name of Albert Pearse. This mentions that all LMS missionaries left the Leeward Islands by 1890, but it doesn't really speak of Pearse own personal fate. Also can anybody help me find other names of missionaries who preached in the Leeward Islands during this waning decade of the 1880s. Just to specify I am not interested in missionaries in Tahiti or before this period. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Comparison: Movie '300' with 'Da vinchi code' Book
Who watched the movie '300'. Is this movie similar to 'Da vincihi code', e.g., in the movie '300', they assume that the viewer will have the basic understanding of the past histories, about the 'Gods' and 'oracles', they just go through with the primary story/topic through the 'Gods' and 'oracles' e.g., Sparta guy and so on... I have not read the 'Da vinchi code' I have a basic understanding... Q: Does the 'Da vinchi code' and '300' possess a similar layout?
Spend your thinking time in understanding the real world and not allow fiction writers who can wast your time, to wast your time. Nor question their motives (they want to sell book, not illuminate the reader). Why discuss this? Others may just love the 'Da vincihi code', but they can discuss this this on blogs. WP is not the right place. Who cares about the layout or lies that authors use to draw in their readership? --Aspro (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You can lie as much as you want in a story which you state to be fiction. If you claim it's a true story and then lie, that could get you in trouble. They usually get around this by saying it's "(fiction) based on a true story". Unfortunately, mixing truth and fiction goes back at least to Homer. Do'oh ! StuRat (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Calling "bullshit" on "If you claim it's a true story and then lie, that could get you in trouble" There are lots of works of fiction which claim "This is based on a true story" which are actually not at all. See Fargo (film), which states, unequivocally at the beginning "This is a true story, these events happened in Minnesota in 1987" While the Coen brothers had a few disparate murder cases that they borrowed some ideas from (and really, every work of fiction borrows "ideas" from real life at some point), Fargo's opening disclaimer of truth is completely not true. And no one got in trouble for that. --Jayron3201:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It didn't get the Coen Brothers in trouble, but it "could" get you in trouble. Like, for instance, if I were to publish my book "CJK5H" with a "this really happened" claim in the front, in some countries I could be sued (successfully) for libel. 75.140.88.172 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Only if there was a real person so libeled. You can't be sued for libel if no real person is told falsehoods about. --Jayron3216:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Or if the real person is dead. Or if the lie is so preposterous you can convince a lawyer to convince a judge that a "reasonable person" shouldn't believe it was serious. Or if you file with broadcast regulators as an entertainment and news channel. Or if you pay the person you libel a proportionately tiny amount to stay away from court and never speak of this again. Or if the person has an "unfortunate accident". Or if he somehow comes to believe he or his family may have "unfortunate accidents".
Ammm, I'm killing my fictional character, probably will aware readers in the beginning or take the journey of life to his death bed. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC))
Uhm. Thinks to myself.... How can politicians speak lies whilst claiming it to be the truth and get away with it? (you may well ask how I know them to be lying … simple, I can see their lips moving). (think you're contributing Do'oh to the wrong Homer - Ho! Ho!) --Aspro (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hence the quote attributed to Mark Twain, "The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." So there you are. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hush, don't clue him in. Wasn't it Daniel Burnham who said "Make no small lies"? That 1943 Titanic sounds pretty funny. Propaganda media usually do, after some passage of time. The funniest thing is Goebbels having second thoughts about it, as it might give the German public ideas. What's the German equivalent of "D'oh!"? ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 10:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Seriously guys, has anyone seen the movie and or read the book or not? I need to know whether the layouts are similar or not, because I only seen ‘300’ and I read a bit of ‘Da vinchi code’ from Misplaced Pages…
Clarify the following as well please,
Lie Test 01: Can I get away with, by saying 'Alien' or 'Predator' was the 'Messiah' of 'UFO' Religion and the other was the 'False Messiah'? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC))
Absolutely not (to both questions). They kill people, and neither even pretends to be doing it for our own good. Big Lies need Big Loudspeakers! Little people have those now, with Twitter and whatnot, but when everyone's speaking, they become relatively quiet. You're certainly free to try, though. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:57, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
No, they don't have the same 'layout'. 300 is presented as an exaggerated account given by a storyteller, and explores how events become myths. The Da Vinci Code presents itself as being a fictional story included purportedly true facts about history and society, which are fairly universally hilariously wrong. 31.54.195.38 (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Why would that make you sad? It demonstrates that you can lie as much as you want, as blatantly as you want, as long as what you're lying about is outside most people's everyday lives and would require a basic google search for them to check, and people will still take your fictional story as an accurate guide to just about anything, with no negative consequences for you. Just don't lie about real people with access to more expensive lawyers than you. 31.54.195.38 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This cheered me up a bit. I kind of don't lie, I don't like lying... As long as I can get away by saying fictional and follow your and InedibleHulk guideline, I guess, I'll be okay.
Another thing, I know this is suppose to be 'logic' but still asking for assurance: I can get away by saying it was a 'fictional' story to God after death right? Fairy tale stuff and so on? He won't say that I was giving false hopes/dreams/beliefs and so on, right? I know you are not God, I'm just wondering. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
You know what would cheer you up? Googling "bs viral site:cracked.com". Once you get past the first couple pages of results, you'll see bullshit extends to every corner of the known universe, not just Facebook and movies (but mostly there). InedibleHulk(talk) 18:41, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
I'll check it up once I become free. I assume it not required/related to the fictional topic. In regards to corners of the universe. Do you mean 'multiverses' or the 'Big Bang' theory (starting point to the end ever ending point)? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
No, it's just a series of list articles about the sorts of stories that catch on because people don't factcheck. As for the corners of the universe, you'll have to see them. Can't be explained in words or diagrams. InedibleHulk(talk) 16:13, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
I meant you'll have to see the corners, not the articles. Basically just meant to make people imagine a room with two corners. Shouldn't think too hard about it. It was in small type, after all. Dust in the wind. That sort of thing. InedibleHulk(talk) 14:38, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
October 18
Cavalry
I have just been watching a WW1 film about cavalry, and I was wondering, is there an army in the world which still uses troops mounted on horses? I know they were still used in WW2 (the German army actually had more horses than tanks, despite the image of Blitzkrieg that we have). When (if) were horses 'phased out' in western armies for front-line combat? To repeat my main question, does anyone still use them? KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This is one of those "proving a negative" type questions that's difficult to answer with certainty, but the answer is ALMOST certainly not. I know most about the Australian Light Horse. Regiments with the name still exist, but they became mechanised and did away with the last of their horses (apart from for ceremonial purposes) around the time of WWII. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has an article about everything - try Cavalry#Post–World War II to present day which cites several recent examples. A bit further up the page it says that the British Army has been fully mechanised since 1942 - (excluding ceremonial use referred to above); the last British horsed cavalry regiment was operating in the hills of Palestine I believe. Alansplodge (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Although to qualify that a little, these are really mounted infantry rather than cavalry in the traditional sense, but they do qualify as "troops mounted on horses" mentioned in KageTora's original question. Alansplodge (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I purposefully didn't make a distinction between mounted infantry and actual cavalry. Thanks for the responses. Coincidentally, and quite bizarrely, the first answer mentioned the Australian Light Horse. That was actually the film I had been watching (bit of a B-movie, but anyway).
Until a few years ago the South African Army had a light infantry battalion (12 South African Infantry Battalion) that used a mix of horses and motorcycles for mobility. They were however mounted infantry rather than cavalry as they dismounted when in contact with the enemy and fought on foot. Although the battalion has been disbanded the mounted infantry capability has been retained in the form of the "SA Army Specialised Infantry Capability" unit which also provides and trains dogs and their handlers for the Army. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
One mountain gap, where Interstate 66 crosses the Blue Ridge, bears an Indian name -- Manassas. A historical marker at the gap notes that it might have been named for "a local Jewish innkeeper" with the biblical name Manasseh. But there would have been no one to come to the inn when the name Manassas first appeared -- on surveyor John Warner's 1737 area map. The area was not settled until a decade later.
I tend to believe that the name Manassas relates to Massanutten Mountain, the prominent range of the Appalachians to the west, quite visible from Manassas Gap. Massanutten may, in an Indian language, mean peaked mountain, locally pronounced in two syllables, "peak-id."
Other Indian lore says Massanutten stands for three tops, as the mountain has three distinct summits; old field, a reference to former fields on its slopes; or basket, as the Fort Valley separating the mountain from the Blue Ridge might be construed as having a basket-like shape.
(ec) :This site has some background regarding the name, mostly towards the bottom of the page. In short, it's not known for certain, but the writer seems o think it's most likely a corruption of a local Indian name. But then there's this explanation as well, though I think the first reference is a better researched. We should probably update our article. Matt Deres (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
a map showing the Shenandoah Valley/Blue Ridge area of Virginia. Massanutten Mountain is the long ridge that lies between the two main forks of the Shenandoah. East of Massanutten (and the eastern of the two forks) lies the taller "Main Ridge" of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Manassas Gap, mentioned above, is the gap in the smaller Bull Run Mountains that lies much closer to Manassas, along the border of Prince William County and Fauquier County. The Bull Run Mountains (and that gap) serve as the origin of Bull Run, the creek that ends up at Manassas I'm having a hard time swallowing the idea that Manassas is named for Massanutten; whether they share a coincidental linguistic connection is one thing (and I'm not even sure of that), but other than both being in Virginia, I'm not entirely sure one can see much of Massanutten Mountain all the way from Manassas. Massanutten Mountain is an impressively long mountain, running about 50 miles from north to south. However, Manassas is some 50 miles east of it; and there's several ridges between Manassas and Masanutten itself, notably the Bull Run Mountains (closest to Manassas) and the main ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountains, behind which Massanutten lies. You can see on the map I linked. One may be able to make out the very northern end of Massanutten through some of the gaps of the closer ridges, but it wouldn't be the most striking geographic feature from Manassas. Seems like a folk etymology to me, no better than the (obviously wrong) Jewish innkeeper story. --Jayron3200:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Did segregation in the 1950s America affect Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants?
Did racial segregation in the 1950s of America affect Asian-Americans and then-recent Asian immigrants? If so, in what ways? Did Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants have to use the "colored" restrictions too? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Poor people (in 1st world countries) are poor because they are not aspirational"
Is this statement true? I read a blocked sockpuppet say "In first world countries such as the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, etc, we generally have well funded schools, support networks, and public support for colleges and further education with loans and grants. So really there should be no excuse for people not to succeed unless they are lazy, inspirational or terrible at making life choices." Is this a valid argument? What about "When we see a 45 year old man working at the Telcos/Walmart check out counter for the past 15 years, he failed at life"? In 1st world countries, should money not be a barrier? InedibleHulk(talk) 20:29, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
At least in the US, many of those things are lacking for the poor. For example, local funding of school districts ensures that schools in poor areas are perpetually underfunded, since those communities lack the resources to pay for their own schools. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If everyone "succeeded", nobody would be left to work. If you see anyone at WalMart, be glad they're serving you. There's only so much money to go around, and no amount of aspiration is going to change that. If you want super-rich people, you need more who are relatively super-poor. InedibleHulk(talk) 16:49, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this theory is that, even if everyone succeeds, some will succeed more than others, and then those who have succeeded less can be labelled as "lazy, indigent..." by those who have succeeded more. So such an attitude is at best patronising and at worst incendiary. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Incendiary sounds nice. I used to work at Behemart, behind both a register and a customer service desk, training other cashiers, pushing carts, and I even tested for management (would've gotten it if the positions I wanted ever opened up). My experience there (though anecdotal) has only cemented the idea in my head that wealth is inversely related to common sense and good work ethic. Most of the "dumb cashier" stories I heard (and still hear) are usually the (far more financially comfortable) customer not having a damn clue how the real world works. Stuff like how a functioning store working for a greedy corporation keeps prices low, that "per lb" has meant "per pound" for Americans since Plymouth fecking Rock, how a near minimum wage employee staring at numbers all day might take two seconds longer to get your change than you'd like, that four items costing $3.99 will come closer to $12 than $9, or that customers breaking all the electric wheelchairs is not the same as me or the store discriminating against the handicapped.</rant>
If the poor in First World countries are ignorant and lazy, it follows that the rich must be intelligent and hard-working. A few minutes' observation in a place where only rich people congregate, such as an expensive tea room, will rapidly disprove the proposition. While the accumulators of material wealth may have used brainpower and effort to amass it, their dependants and heirs need neither. And if money has become the sole measure of someone's success in life, perhaps the First World is not worth living in? --Clifford Mill (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"I asked her if she thought it was a good idea to have sex with a man who had repeatedly beaten her up, and from whom she said she wished to separate.
"It's complicated, doctor. That's the way life goes sometimes."
What had she known of this man before she took up with him? She met him in a club; he moved in at once, because he had nowhere else to stay. He had a child by another woman, neither of whom he supported. He had been in prison for burglary. He took drugs. He had never worked, except for cash on the side. Of course he never gave her any of his money, instead running up her telephone bills vertiginously. (...)
What had her experience taught her?
"I don't want to think about it. The Housing'll charge me for the damage, and I ain't got the money. I'm depressed, doctor; I'm not happy. I want to move away, to get away from him."
Later in the day, feeling a little lonely, she telephoned her ex-boyfriend, and he visited her.
I discussed the case with the doctor who had recently arrived from Madras, and who felt he had entered an insane world. (...) He asked me what would happen next to the happy couple.
"They'll find her a new flat. They'll buy her new furniture, television, and refrigerator, because it's unacceptable poverty in this day and age to live without them. They'll charge her nothing for the damage to her old flat, because she can't pay anyway, and it wasn't she who did it. He will get away scot-free. Once she's installed in her new flat to escape from him, she'll invite him there, he'll smash it up again, and then they'll find her somewhere else to live. There is, in fact, nothing she can do that will deprive her of the state's obligation to house, feed, and entertain her." (...)
I asked the doctor from Madras if poverty was the word he would use to describe this woman's situation. He said it was not: that her problem was that she accepted no limits to her own behavior, that she did not fear the possibility of hunger, the condemnation of her own parents or neighbors, or God. In other words, the squalor of England was not economic but spiritual, moral, and cultural. "
"By the end of three months my doctors have, without exception, reversed their original opinion that the welfare state, as exemplified by England, represents the acme of civilization. (...) They come to realise that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgements in allocating economic rewards promotes anti-social egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their home countries. (...) 'On the whole', said one Filipino doctor to me, 'life is preferable in the slums of Manila.' He said it without any illusions as to the quality of life in Manila."http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_oh_to_be.html
In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaint, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.
Listening as I do every day to the accounts people give of their lives, I am struck by the very small part in them which they ascribe to their own efforts, choices, and actions. (...)
It is instructive to listen to the language they use to describe their lives. The language of prisoners in particular teaches much about the dishonest fatalism with which people seek to explain themselves to others, especially when those others are in a position to help them in some way. As a doctor who sees patients in a prison once or twice a week, I am fascinated by prisoners’ use of the passive mood and other modes of speech that are supposed to indicate their helplessness. They describe themselves as the marionettes of happenstance.
(...)
Another burglar demanded to know from me why he repeatedly broke into houses and stole VCRs. He asked the question aggressively, as if “the system” had so far let him down in not supplying him with the answer; as if it were my duty as a doctor to provide him with the buried psychological secret which, once revealed, would in and of itself lead him unfailingly on the path of virtue. Until then, he would continue to break into houses and steal VCRs (when at liberty to do so), and the blame would be mine.
When I refused to examine his past, he exclaimed, “But something must make me do it!”“How about greed, laziness, and a thirst for excitement?” I suggested.“What about my childhood?” he asked.“Nothing to do with it,” I replied firmly.
He looked at me as if I had assaulted him. Actually, I thought the matter more complex than I was admitting, but I did not want him to misunderstand my main message: that he was the author of his own deeds.
Another prisoner claimed to be under so strong a compulsion to steal cars that it was irresistible—an addiction, he called it. He stole up to forty vehicles a week, but nevertheless considered himself a fundamentally good person because he was never violent towards anyone (...)
Now the generally prevalent conception of an addiction is of an illness, characterized by an irresistible urge (mediated neurochemically and possibly hereditary in nature) to consume a drug or other substance, or to behave in a repetitively self-destructive or antisocial way. An addict can’t help himself, and because his behavior is a manifestation of illness, it has no more moral content than the weather.
So in effect what my car thief was telling me was that his compulsive car-stealing was not merely not his fault, but that the responsibility for stopping him from behaving thus was mine, since I was the doctor treating him. And until such time as the medical profession found the behavioral equivalent of an antibiotic in the treatment of pneumonia, he could continue to cause untold misery and inconvenience to the owners of cars and yet consider himself fundamentally a decent person.http://www.city-journal.org/story.php?id=1371Asmrulz (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"Oh, Lord," sighs the Junior Apostle (the Senior Apostle is away in Jerusalem), "many are widout jobs, many are widout mudders and farders, many are widout homes. We pray thee, Lord, to find dem work, to find dem homes, to bring comfort to dem dat are widout mudders and farders."
The shootings were much on the mind of the congregation, for the victims and perpetrators alike could have been the sons, brothers, or consorts (I hardly dare speak of husbands anymore, for fear of being thought implicitly intolerant) of the women who now sobbed their impromptu prayers facedown on their pews. (...)
"We thank Thee, Lord! We thank Thee, Lord! We thank Thee, Lord!"
(...)
"But we are all sinners, Lord. Therefore we pray for forgiveness. We do not always follow Your ways, Lord; we are proud, we are stubborn, we want to go our own way. We think only of ourselves. That is why there is so much sin, so much robbery, so much violence, on our streets."
I recalled the faces of the young men in the prison now accused of murder: their hard, glittering, expressionless eyes—young men who recognized no law but their own desire of the moment. The old lady described (and explained) their radical egotism in a religious way.
Murmurs of assent were heard everywhere. It wasn't the police's fault, or racism's, or the system's, or capitalism's; it was the failure of sinners to acknowledge any moral authority higher than their personal whim. And in asserting this, the congregation was asserting its own freedom and dignity: poor and despised as its members might be, they were still human enough to decide for themselves between right and wrong. And they offered hope to others, too: for if a man chose to do evil, he could later elect, by an act of will, to do good. No one had to wait until there was perfect justice in the world, or all the circumstances were right, before he himself did good.http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_3_oh_to_be.html
Interesting testimony, though dated and overlong, but totally invalidated by the writer's obvious ideological bias (or do I mean blindness?). Though London has its problems, they are minor compared with the massive disparities in the United States. --Clifford Mill (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
And those are relatively small next to the disparities in India or China. At the end of the day, no matter where we live, the biggest problems are the ones directly affecting us. If you literally went blind, that'd be much worse than reading that 4% of drone victims were with al-Qaeda. Is that bias? Is bias always bad? InedibleHulk(talk) 14:56, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
That's good news. Not sure why you want me to read it. If it's about the "failed at life" thing in the OP, I didn't actually ask the question. Just rephrased it when it was deleted for being asked by a sock. Sorry for any confusion. All the replies under my name were me. There was actually another follow-up question I deleted outright, for lack of the right words. But the gist stayed the same without it. InedibleHulk(talk) 21:58, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Rabindranath Tagore
I want to know how do the public at large in the western world (USA,Western and Eastern Europe ,Russia ,Australias and also the African countries perceive Rabindranath Tagore ,what is the level of popularity is he viewed as a superhuman entity or is he seen as one of the greatest exponents of world literature.In Bengal he is worshipped like a God.It is said that YB Yeats played a key role in translating The Gitanjali. Was Bernard Shaw critical about Tagore. What was his opinion regarding this man and his creations in public and private.How does the British and American public seen and sees Tagore and his work.I am a Bengali and find his works and songs not at all appealing. I find most of them artificial and arousing morbid emotions.Most of the Bengali people will frown upon me and mock me as uncultured and that i am imbecile lacking the mental capability to relish such great creation. I want to know the global assessment and how did the men in the British government appraised him in private .Were those men his fans.pardon for reposting i initially posted this question in language section but there volunteers say that this page is more appropriate.Did Tagore really deserve the Nobel prize in literature or it was out of wartime poltical consideration.Thanks.117.194.236.113 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I would guess that the majority of people in the U.S. don't know who he is, and that some of those who have vaguely heard of him might not distinguish him from Ram Mohan Roy. I don't remember having read anything by him, but he's probably not any less meritorious than the mostly obscure Scandinavians who dominated the Nobel literature prize during its first decades... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I just listened to Amar Shonar Bangla, and I think I speak for Canada when I say once is enough. Monotonous, but worse, because there are two voices. The lyrics are probably a little better in Bangla, but they're almost as boring as the tune in English. No offense to your the nation, just the anthem. I like your the flag. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:43, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
West Bengal is a state in India and so shares the same flag as the other states and India as a whole
Cool, thanks. Sometimes states or provinces have their own. Not a big fan of tricoloured flags. InedibleHulk(talk) 13:18, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
I love his poetry and I've had his collected verse in my library for many years. I don't know his plays. I can't speak for Australians in general, though my suspicion is that he'd be regarded as a minor footnote who's best known - if he's known at all - for returning his knighthood after the Amritsar massacre. I don't remember ever hearing anyone quote him or even refer to him Down Here. Except, I did patronise an Indian restaurant in Canberra a couple of times, named Geetanjali. It's been there for at least 25 years, and I can't imagine the staff have never been asked what Geetanjali means. Whether this has played any role in bringing Tagore and his works to the consciousness of the effete diners of the national capital, I could not say. -- Jack of Oz20:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This question was also raised at the Language Ref Desk, where the OP was advised to raise it here. There are some other replies over there. -- Jack of Oz22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The guy is virtually unknown in Russia. I recall that Vladimir Nabokov referred to "a person called Tagore" as one of "the formidable mediocrities" from the early 20th century, alongside John Galsworthy and Romain Rolland. --Ghirla11:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In French, a couple of his books - the novel Gora and some poetry collections - are available in popular paperback editions, making them accessible without having to frequent a university library or a specialized bookshop. That's better than for most authors whose heyday was a century ago, but that's still a long way from being considered a universal classic like Dostoevski or Ibsen, and even further from being thought of a super-human entity. --Xuxl (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've read a translation of Gitanjali, which I must say I found insufferably dull. But it was just a translation. He is supposed to have got the Nobel because of the recommendation of Yeats. He's one of those people that most 'educated' persons have heard of, but I don't think he's widely read in the West. Since he won the Nobel prize in 1913 I don't know what "wartime political consideration" would have been relevant. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The original idea was an attempted monetary valuation of the reputation and established contacts and business relationships of a firm, considered as intangible assets, but it appears to have become more complicated... AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I heard a story recently that illustrates the importance of goodwill nicely. During the Great Depression the manager of a Ford Dealership refused to repo cars from people who couldn't pay. The owner fired him for this and repossessed the cars, ignoring the importance of goodwill. After the Depression ended, the customers were able to buy cars again, but wanted nothing to do with that Ford dealership, which went bankrupt. The fired manager went to work for a new Buick dealership, and all the customers followed him there. (Of course, the Ford and Buick dealers might be reversed in another town.)
Unfortunately, these days big companies seem to screw the customer over any way they can, like banks that find ways to charge you extra bounced check fees by changing the order they try to cash them. I have to think that the ethical companies will win all their customers in the long run. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
With that story you hit the interesting ethical question of whether our putative manager used company funds to buy the goodwill of the customers, then unfairly took that goodwill with him when he left. 75.140.88.172 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No funds were required to not repo the cars. Of course, the company would have rather had the payments, but repossessing cars during the Great Depression would have been rather pointless anyway, as there wouldn't be customers to sell them to. We recently had a similar issue in the US housing market, where banks repossessed houses, which had the effect of depressing property values, including other homes owned by the bank, and may well have decreased the bank's profits. Economic upheaval alters the normal rules, and doing "business as usual" isn't always the best option. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Stu, I know you're trying to help by guessing, but what you're talking about is not what goodwill accounting is about. The article is poorly written, but fairly clear on this: it refers to the overpayment (over the nominal value of the place) done during a corporate acquisition. Matt Deres (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It is actually very simple, although frequently explained badly. Say you buy a company. You will almost certainly have to buy it at a premium to its actual market value. That premium is the 'goodwill' element. 86.176.124.43 (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
By "actual market value," .43 means the market value of the company's underlying assets. The classic example is the purchase of a retail store. Let's say you pay $500,000 for a store. The inventory is worth $300,000, and the equipment and fixtures are worth $75,000; the lease is at a market rate, so it doesn't have a value. What is the other $125,000? That's considered "goodwill," a name that derives from the theory that the additional value of the store is due to the favorable opinion of customers. The formal definition under generally accepted accounting principles is "n asset representing the future economic benefits arising from other assets acquired in a business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit entity that are not individually acquired and separately recognized"; see the master glossary (free registration required) to the Accounting Standards Codification. John M Baker (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the ja:WP article with citation. See 1988年. They were sentenced to two years in prison with three years' suspension of sentence. So they didn't go to jail. Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I read a story a while back somewhere. Apparently it was a true story about - I believe - a WW1 battle in Africa, probably in German East Africa between British forces and German forces, who were both suddenly attacked by a native tribe in the middle of the battle. The British and Germans temporarily halted fighting each other and joined forces to fight the natives, after which they resumed the battle. Does anyone know which battle this was? KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 21:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Australian and Turkish troops joined forces against a feared attack by Arab irregulars on one occasion towards the end of the Palestine Campaign: I'm not sure if any fighting actually occurred though. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
'Living on air' fairy tale
I KNOW this is stupid. I'm pretty good at reaserching things on the internet. Can't find the answer to this.
I KNOW it's stupid but it's a challenge if you're up to it.
My wife made a comment about how she 'can't live on air'. It sparked a memory of what is most probably a fairy tale. Grimms or whatever. As badly as my memory serves me, the image it conjures up is that of a woman trying to scam a rich old man who makes him believe that she can eat air and survive on that. Seriously this is from my childhood and I'm 60 years old now but the neural connections brought up this image of a woman outside of a window pretending to eat air.
I know it's not that important but it would prove to my wife that I haven't completely lost it by making this claim.
I don't know if you can help me but if you can I would be very grateful.
Never heard of any fairy tale in the Western tradition (there are plenty of Asian ones), although to this day there are people who make a living through this claim, Ellen Greve being the most famous. We have quite an extensive page on the topic at Inedia. Mogism (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
See Inedia - also known as breatharianism. It is of course utter nonsense, though enough people have taken it seriously for a few to have starved themselves to death. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it might be possible to live on air (and the micro-organisms in it), provided you had the machinery to process huge quantities of air, filter out the toxic items, and collect the nutrients. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages article on Secular Humanism does not mention Confucianism, yet the article on Confucianism argues that it is "humanistic". That makes sense, since Confucianism does not really appeal to deities and the supernatural, even though the Confucian people may be a bit devotional. However, the devotional aspects seem to be tied to a religion, not really Confucianism. So, does Confucianism fall under Secular Humanism, or is Secular Humanism a Western European concept? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No. Two different senses of the word. Confucius is only "humanistic" in that it doesn't involve a deity. It did involve ancestor worship, which ends any similarity it has with secular humanism. — Melab±1☎06:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think "ancestor worship" is a mistranslation. Also, the rituals are not necessarily confined to Confucianism, as it is part of the indigenous Chinese religion. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It depends on which form of Confucianism we're talking about. Some Confucian authors wrote or interpreted from a purely political perspective, treating ancestor worship as a civil ceremony. Others wrote under the assumption that worshiping ancestors was necessary to maintain the approval of Heaven. Due to the latter form (Confucianism as a definite religion), there is only and at most potential overlap with secular humanism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Mediatrix of All Graces
I have attempted FIVE times to edit because of a dead link.
I have read ALL there is to do to edit the page and it will not allow me to do so.
Please edit both to read : The True Story of Fatima by John de Marchi, I.M.C. page 87 "the third blasphemy"
I am weary. aged 60 with RA and cannot stay up past the 11:19 MST where I have attempted to do this for over an hour and 1/2.
To help us out, could you provide a link to the article you are trying to edit? Go to the article, copy what is in the address bar (the URL, which will have "en.wikipedia.org/wiki" in it), and paste it here. You can turn it into a link by putting around it, or just paste it here and I'll fix that.
In case it isn't obvious, you can reply to this by clicking the blue 'edit' next to your section title. Can you tell me what I.M.C. means in this context? Also, assuming you're trying to edit Mediatrix of all graces, why does reference number 6 need to be replaced? 31.54.195.38 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I've read several, several, several news stories which used a source "who declined to be named", or sources, most frequently in news reports about security issues, but also in sports articles, and sometimes, even relatively "harmless" articles. I've even seen news reports where spokespeople decline to be named. I've askedquestions about anonymous sources here before on the Reference Desk. But recently, I've been reading codes of ethics of various Journalism organizations. Basically, one aspect that is common to most of these codes of ethics is that anonymous sources should be used with care, as misusing them or even inventing them can damage reputations (see Janet Cooke). In the cases where a person who wishes to be anonymous is quoted in a news report, many of these codes of ethics state that the reason(s) for anonymity should be mentioned. For example, the Associated Press has a page on their values and principles, which states that "we must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity". Not all codes of ethics mention this (for example, Thomson Reuters' code of ethics does not require reasons for anonymity to be disclosed), but a significant number of codes of ethics do. However, most of the news articles I've read which quote anonymous sources do not explicitly mention any reason for anonymity. While my previous questions here have said that the reasons are obvious anyway, or that giving a reason for anonymity could give a clue to the source's identity, the fact that many codes of ethics mention the requirement for disclosing reasons of anonymity (to the point that it is suggested that the source not be used at all if the reason for anonymity is weak or suspicious) suggests that this is not considered a significant issue; in fact, these codes of ethics suggest almost the opposite: describe the source as closely and accurately as possible without explicitly naming the person.
I'm aware that codes of ethics are not binding, and there is usually no penalty for breaching them (except for serious cases), but it nevertheless makes me wonder: how come several news reports continue to exclude reasons for anonymity of anonymous sources even if codes of ethics (which are probably taught to journalists) frequently state that reasons for anonymity must be included to "give the reader full confidence for the source"? Before anyone asks, I've read Journalism ethics and standards and Source (journalism)#Anonymity, but they don't answer my question. Narutolovehinata511:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
One reason: When you consistently pop up in the top Google results or have a name like "The Most Trusted Name in News", you can do without worrying if poor sourcing is going to hurt the reader's confidence, by that point. The line between news and entertainment is blurrier than ever, and if you can get the eyeballs with a headline like "ISIS 'too extreme' for al-Qaeda", it doesn't really matter who said it. The important thing is whether people hear it. Like you say, there's no or little punishment for unethically increasing business. Same reason people cheat at many jobs. InedibleHulk(talk) 13:34, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
(Edit Conflicts) If I've interpreted you correctly, your essential question is:
". . . how come several news reports continue to exclude reasons for anonymity of anonymous sources even if codes of ethics (which are probably taught to journalists) frequently state that reasons for anonymity must be included to "give the reader full confidence for the source"?"
There could be various (not mutually exclusive) reasons for this:
The particular news agency concerned might not subscribe officially or in reality (Fox News, anyone?) to a particular set of ethics that requires it;
They might be omitted for the sake of brevity, particularly in a broadcast story where only seconds are available;
The journalists involved might not be working to their highest standards – we all have off days at work;
One or more journalists involved might not be fully competent in this respect;
The journalists might be under pressure from higher management to get the story out and fill the column or broadcast, even though they themselves do not have full confidence in it;
One or more of the journalists involved might actually be breaching guidelines deliberately, using illegal sources, obtaining information via bribery or blackmail, or making some things up, and is using the anonymity as cover;
Inclusion of the reasons might give to much of a clue to the source's identity, leading to that source being reprimanded, fired, arrested or assassinated, depending upon circumstances. (You mentioned this yourself, but I include it for completeness.)
I'm sure others can add further possibilities. Long story short: we live in an imperfect world, and there can be any number of innocent or non-innocent reasons why something doesn't measure up to an ideal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.80.169 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be good to have an organization whose sole purpose is to confirm the existence of anonymous sources. The news org and source could agree to have that org confirm the source, and they would then meet them, with the same promise to keep the source hidden. This org should be located in a nation with strong protections for anon sources, and could be run on donations, as a charity, so no money is taken from the news org. In time, only news orgs with this type of confirmation on anon sources would be taken seriously. StuRat (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I want to echo the above reqeust for examples. In particular, it sounds to me like your evidence doesn't support your conclusion. When you have two of the major news agencies not agreeing on whether it's necessary to give the reasons why, this would suggest it's hardly something settled among major proponents of journalism ethics. The fact that you found a significant number who do recommend it, only means it's something which a significant number do recommend, it doesn't mean it's had widespread consensus. (And I would note, at least to me significant can still be far from a majority, particularly in something with so many participants as this.)
Perhaps journalism ethics courses will consider giving the reasons the safer bet and so may be more likely to recommend this, perhaps not.
The more relevant question which you don't seem to have touched is whether people are violating the code of ethics they're supposed to be following. For example, are you finding many stories from AP or other sources where the code of ethics do suggest it, where the stories are not reporting the reason for anonymity? If you're primarily seeing stories from Reuters and other sources which don't recommend it, it seem again all you've got evidence for is that this isn't something with anything close to consensus and that journalists are following the code of ethic they're supposed to be following, but not necessarily following other ones which recommend different stuff.
On my part, I commonly hear or read a source saying something like "who asked to remain anonymous because she/he didn't have permission to speak to the media".
In both politics and in the business world, information is often leaked "strategically". This gives a false sense of empowerment to the media, the employees, etc. A way of getting the real story out there to kind of "prepare" the audience for what's coming. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
My name is Ed McGarrity. I'm doing some research on historical low temperatures for Easter Island. I've run into some data from other sources that conflicts with the numbers posted on Misplaced Pages.
Can anyone tell me what the source was for Misplaced Pages's numbers? If I can validate those figures, it will be very helpful. Please refer any helpful information to: (deleted)
Thanks,
Ed -- 00:24, 20 October 2014 199.17.232.4
Hi, Ed. Thanks for the question, but please (1) don't indent and double-space your text; it breaks the normal wiki formatting; I've edited your message to change it. (2) Pleas don't post your email address here; I've deleted it. And (3) please don't post the same question to more than one reference desk.
I recently came across our article on Li_Ching-Yuen. Interesting stuff, right? Anyway, simple question: what is he holding in his hands in this photo? Some sort of incense, talisman or charm perhaps? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone happened to know the answers to a few questions I have about the motto of the Royal Society: "Nullius in Verba". As well as being generally curious I'm thinking of getting this as a tattoo, but I want to do it properly, so I'm interested in early written records of it that I can reference for typeface etc.
In what year was the motto first used?
How and by whom was it chosen and was it ever formally ratified e.g. by a vote of the fellows?
In what document did the motto first appear in print?
Did the motto ever appear in the pages of the Philosophical Transactions, if so, where? (I can't seem to find it in the online archive, but it's possible that some of the front matter etc. was not digitized)
I realise that the best course of action may be to write to the Royal Society and enquire directly, but I thought I'd give the reference desk a go first. Thanks in advance. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 17:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Bookplate from the library of Henry Howard, 6th Duke of Norfolk (1628-1684)
Hello Equistetum, Nullius in verba has two sources which answer #2 (and possibly #1). The motto was ratified on Sept 17, 1662. The list of possible mottos (written in 1660) survives, and is in the handwriting of John Evelyn, though the names of the other committee members aren’t mentioned. Taknaran (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In section three of the Khwarazmian dynasty page, you can read some uncited lines about refugee mercenaries from Khorasan after the empire collapsed trying to set up unions and resist low pay. This early outbreak of class consciousness does seem a bit surprising, and I wonder if it really happened.
"Class-conscious" movements existed long before that time -- see Mazdakism -- but they didn't take the form of modern trade-unionism. Mercenary soldiers demanding their pay is a situation that has shaken a number of realms in history, but I'm not sure that it had much resemblance to modern trade-unionism either.... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Difference between a Credit Union and a Building Society
That seems a bit unkind. I was asking because I spent some time reading about both and couldn't figure out the difference. If you don't want to answer my question, then just skip to the next one. --Munchkinguy (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In practice the main difference is that the building societies have been around for a lot longer. They usually have physical branches in more than one town, whereas a credit union may only have a single office. A building society would have more staff. By definition, a building society offers mortgages, whereas a credit union probably would not. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That's interesting because credit unions in Canada offer mortgages and have multiple branches. I've seen a few ads for credit unions popping up in London and was curious what the difference was. --Munchkinguy (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, the only difference between the two is a historical one (and then a matter of purpose rather than effect, with Building societies focused more on actually getting homes, while credit unions were just an alternative to banks). If there was some massive overhaul of society to relabel things according to their purpose, they'd probably end up lumped together. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The OP was asking about the UK. Our credit unions are quite recently established. There was a discussion a year or so ago about whether their senior staff are well remunerated. I looked it up, and they are not, in fact they are largely volunteers. Moreover, they employ very few middle level or junior staff. You can get your salary paid into a credit union in the UK, although not many people are aware of that. You can save money with them, and of course they lend, mainly small sums and mainly to people who aren't well off. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
October 21
England expects that every man etc. Why not Britain?
On 1805 October 21st Lord Nelson famously signaled "England expects that every man will do his duty". Can anyone explain how this was possible at such a historical moment (not some casual slip of the tongue) almost one hundred years after the Acts of Union? I do understand that in 1707 Scotland's contribution was something like three ships. However in 1805 the Royal Navy was (albeit in practice essentially an English thing) officially the whole of the kingdom of Britain's navy. To Nelson's sailors and soldiers at Trafalgar (most of them English I would guess) was "Britain" in 1805 still a somewhat artificial entity? Would employing "Britain" have smacked of officialese? Are there any other historical examples of this kind? Contact Basemetalhere01:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The flag code used (devised by Rear Admiral Sir Home Popham) appears not to have 'Britain' as one of its codewords - though it does have 'England'. Spelling out 'Britain' would have made the message substantially longer, and thus would have taken more time to send. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
To this day, many people still refer to the "Queen of England", which is as terminologically accurate as, I dunno, the "President of California" or something. -- Jack of Oz05:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
California was claimed for Queen Elizabeth by Sir Francis Drake. However, as the case of John Augustus Sutter shows - who was unlawfully deprived of the land upon which San Francisco now stands, won his law suit in 1855, and died a beggar on the steps of the Congress in 1880 - respect for others' property rights in that State does not seem to be very highly thought of. 86.176.124.43 (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point, but to me this fits better with synecdoche than metonymy. The former is for parts of the whole, the latter is for aspects of the thing. Of course there is plenty of room for overlap. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I am currently reading a book about security in Britain during WWI and official memos, etc. most commonly referred to "England" as the protagonist in the war. Even in the 1950s when I was at school in England (sic) we needed to be rather actively taught that England and Britain were not the same thing. It is only in recent decades that there has been any political sensitivity in England on such matters. Thincat (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. I see no problems with referring to the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom, but referring to it as "Britain" seems problematic. Historically, "Britain", "Briton" and "British" were used to refer to the Brythonic peoples and their descendants, not the English. It seems inaccurate to refer to something of Anglo-Saxon origin as "British". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
While originally the words "Briton" and "British" referred to the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of Roman and pre-Roman times, during the modern era, the words came to refer to all of the inhabitants of Great Britain, as well as at least the Protestants of Northern Ireland, whose ancestors came from Great Britain. During the modern era, Britain has become a widely recognized synonym for the United Kingdom, and few people are concerned about the word's Roman or pre-Roman origins. Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The English have probably always had a stronger emotional tie to "England" than to "Britain". Britain stands for the imperial, world-power, dominant side of the United Kingdom. England is the motherland, where people spent their childhoods and have their families. Assuming that all or a large majority of the seamen Nelson was addressing were English, referring to "England" in his appeal gave it a more visceral emotional power. Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
No, American English is clearly a variety of English rather than of Scots or any other British language. American English ultimately derived specifically from England (though with some influences probably by way of what is now Northern Ireland). There is no "British language", or if there is, reverting to Tharthan's point above, that language is Welsh. Marco polo (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
That's hardly clear, given American is Rhotic like Scots and Irish, the influence of Irish on Americn, and the fact that Germans and Irish outnumber English by ethnicity in American residents. If anything, it's clear the Queen Great Britain speaks the President's American. Except she's fonder of Churchill. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Or Breton. Which is actually called "British". Paul B (talk)
I am aware it's called Breton. Where is it called British? That's like saying Dutch is called Deutsch and Slovenian's called Slovak, no? μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Part of the the reason for this is that much of the most famous English literature was written before the Act of Union. Shakespeare is almost all about "England", not "Britain" (with the exception of late James I/IV era plays). So much of the most famous patriotic literature uses 'England'. And of course "United Kingdom" is more of a technical label than a name. But I've always also thought that this is related to the very words England and Britain. I don't known why, but the name "England" just sounds better than "Britain" - more inspiring. When Clifton Webb says "do a great thing for England", there's something in the rhythm and the sharpness of the consonants that has a ring to it. It just seems to shine in a way that "do a great thing for Britain" doesn't. Britain has a dull sound. Paul B (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages-Article on Henri Bergson states, quote:
Charles Sanders Peirce took strong exception to those who associated him with Bergson. In response to a letter comparing his work with that of Bergson he wrote, “a man who seeks to further science can hardly commit a greater sin than to use the terms of his science without anxious care to use them with strict accuracy; it is not very gratifying to my feelings to be classed along with a Bergson who seems to be doing his utmost to muddle all distinctions.”
I have worked on Peirce for years but cannot find this Quote. Unfortunately there is no footnote to tell me where to look.
Can anybody help me verify that Peirce wrote what he supposedly wrote and tell me where I can find the information? DWagner (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Why does the CIA World Factbook consider South Africa a developed country which by their definition means 'high income or 1st world' economy?
Why does the CIA World Factbook consider South Africa a developed country which by their definition means 'high income or 1st world' economy?
This is the current CIA standard. And they consider developed to be equivalent to the 1st world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries
the top group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates; also known as the First World, high-income countries, the North, industrial countries; generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $15,000 although four OECD countries and South Africa have figures well under $15,000 and eight of the excluded OPEC countries have figures of more than $20,000; the DCs include: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, NZ, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US; note - similar to the new International Monetary Fund (IMF) term "advanced economies" that adds Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan but drops Malta, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey
"The criteria for including these states are not mentioned." Hard to be sure if that's matter of fact from Misplaced Pages, or a veiled threat from the CIA. Probably safe to say South Africa is what it is, and that's all there is to it. That's as far as I'm digging, anyway. A better answer will probably be along shortly. InedibleHulk(talk) 23:23, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
Sure you can. Read one, and then the other. Or, to make things more challenging, read a chapter from each, alternating until they're both done. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Do we really have to put up with this sort of abuse of the ref desk? And from an administrator, no less? Dismas's request for clarity was good, but that's about as far as we ought to go. If Drmies wasn't then prepared to respond with something rational, then the whole thing should have been deleted on the spot. It's doing ourselves a disservice to entertain such rubbish any further, and I suspect all the above responses will prove to have been a waste of time and effort. Thanks, Comrade Administrator. -- Jack of Oz02:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks StuRat.
-- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC))
Resolved
.jpg)